Post navigation

Today, there is no American news outlet factually covering the illegal actions of the sitting President of the United States in context. Nor is there one consistently exposing the laws his administration has flagrantly broken, though this corruption now demonstrably permeates every level of the federal system.

By now it is unsurprising the media has by and large ignored this announcement, although AG Cuccinelli did appear in an extended segment with CSPAN (the relevant segment can be found here) on March 18th.

Fortunately, The Tea Party Tribune published the Attorney’s General memo, “A Report on Obama Administration Violations of Law” in full the same day it was released. It is nothing short of a flashing legal headline story, yet cannot be found at the Washington Post or the New York Times.

“Whether it is through the EPA, NLRB, Office of Surface Mining, FCC or other entities, the Obama Administration has aggressively used administrative agencies to implement policy objectives that cannot gain congressional approval and are outside of the law.” – A Report on Obama Administration Violations of Law

An abbreviated list of broken laws includes:

PPACA (Obamacare): Individual Mandate; To be heard by Supreme Court of the United States in March

FCC: Regulation of the Internet in the face of a court order from Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. stating that the FCC does not have the power to regulate the Internet

EPA 1: GHG (Green House Gas) lawsuit; EPA’s own Inspector General reported last September that EPA failed to comply with its own data standards; Heard in Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. in February

OSM: Attempting to impose regulatory requirements on the 19 states with authority for exclusive regulation of their coalmines for the first time in more than 30 years

DOJ: South Carolina & Voting Rights Act: Rejecting voter ID statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court of the United States; DOJ ignored section 8 of the Voting Rights Act which calls for protections against voter fraud, and used section 5 to administratively block measures to protect the integrity of elections passed by state legislatures in preclearance states including South Carolina; South Carolina voter ID law merely requires a voter to show photo identification in order to vote or to complete an affidavit at the pain of perjury if the voter does not have a photo ID

DOJ: Arizona & Voting Rights Act: Rejecting voter ID statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court of the United States

DOE: Yucca Mountain; In 2009, Administration arbitrarily broke federal law and derailed the most studied energy project in American history when DOE announced intent to withdraw 8,000 page Yucca Mountain licensing application with prejudice.

14 more violations of law are listed in the AGs’ memo. At one time or another, many of these violations have made the news, yet the full list is never presented to the public. When compiled, it is apparent even at a glance that the federal government as led by Barack Obama has no respect for the law. Clearly, the Obama government is acting as it deems fit. Much as a monarchy would. As if the States did not exist. As if the Constitution of the United States did not apply.

Indeed, when it comes to Obama and his government, the Constitution is a barrier to be removed. As Obama stated in a 2001 interview with NPR, “generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.” Undeniably, the Constitution limits government negatively; it states what the government cannot do. From the point of view of someone attempting to expand government powers beyond that which the Constitution limits it to, it is extraordinarily (and negatively) limiting. It was designed that way. It is the keystone, the cornerstone, the foundation of a free people; one freed and protected from government tyranny.

The M-1/A-2 tank in the room

If more evidence were needed to delineate the obvious disrespect coming from the Oval Office for the Law, on Monday, April 2nd 2012, President Barack Obama attempted to erase 200 years of legal history, stating in a press conference with world leaders that the law codified in the Supreme Court Case Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. 137) 1803 is not valid:

“Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress.” – Barack Obama 4-5-2012

Hundreds of bills have passed out of Congress and been found unconstitutional, overturned by the Supreme Court, since Marbury V. Madison established in 1803 the Supreme Court’s right of judicial review.

The Supreme Court has been the final arbiter of law, determining the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress for over two hundred years. There is no article or section in the Constitution which specifically bestows this power within the Court. Instead, Marbury was the court’s interpretation of the Constitution; furthermore, the legal precedent it set in that decision still stands as good law today.

This is not the first time Mr. Obama has attempted to re-write history to his liking. The difference here lay in the fact that the media is in a feeding frenzy over this one.

The day following this massive falsehood, April 2nd, Eric Holder was ordered to address Obama’s statements by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, forcing the administration to publicly acknowledge the law established in Marbury.

Attorney General Eric Holder stated in the department’s court ordered response: “The Department has not in this litigation, nor in any other litigation of which I am aware, ever asked this or any other Court to reconsider or limit long-established precedent concerning judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation.” Even the Attorney General of the United States is hanging Obama out to dry on this issue.

Marbury V. Madison is not just an elephant in the room; it’s more like M-1/A-2 tank running flat out, but not for the reasons most immediately apparent. What is missing from this conversation, so ravenously devoured by the press, is this: Marbury was decided in 1803, it’s has been cited hundreds of times. It has never been overturned. The Attorney General of the United States affirms that it is good law. There is absolutely no question it is binding law, so commonplace it wasn’t even a discussion piece outside first year law school until the president tried to undo it in a press conference.

So far, so good, but what’s missing here?

If Marbury has never been overturned and is binding law with decades of citable history behind it, what makes it different from a case decided in 1875 which has also never been overturned and has been cited to for decades?

Nothing. They are both still law.

Minor V. Happersett in 1875 decided that Ms. Virginia Minor did not have the right to vote. While originally a Women’s Suffrage (voting) case, the Court in Minor interpreted the Constitution, determining that citizenship itself did not give right to vote, unequivocally stating in the final paragraph of the decision: “Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one” – Minor V. Happersett (88 U.S. 162).

Constitutional Amendments against discrimination preventing a person from voting based on race (15th), sex (19th) and age (26th)., are taken for granted as being a constitutional rights to vote; yet in reality, there is no constitutionally protected “right” to vote (there are amendments against discrimination.)

To re-state this immeasurably important distinction, there is nothing in the Constitution which gives Americans the right to vote; instead, the Constitution eliminates circumstances such as gender and race from preventing voting. This is a legal distinction perhaps only a lawyer can properly love, yet the fact remains that the difference between the two is as great as the difference between lead and gold.

This is why the Minor Case has never been overturned; its conclusion is a statement of fact. Because it has never been overturned, the basic definitions of citizenship made in Minor still apply today because they are the independent grounds upon which the court made its decision.

To use a metaphor, ‘The light bulb turned on because there is electricity. Electricity is the flow of electrons in a current which heats a wire making a light bulb glow.’ The definition of electricity is the independent ground upon which we can say the light bulb turned on.

This is not an issue of dictionary semantics or the meaning of words changing over time. The Minor court defined natural born citizenship as part of its independent ground for deciding the case, making it a part of the “holding” – for deciding the case as it did. “Citizenship does not give the right to vote. Citizens are…” These definitions were codified in law which, like those made in Marbury V. Madison, makes them inviolate.

The court in 1875 chose to define through its specific wording what natural born citizens were and still are today, just as in 1803 it decided the right of judicial review lay with the Supreme Court and nowhere else.

Illegal governments do illegal things

Why is the Minor case relevant in 2012 as it applies to the federal government breaking laws left and right?

The answer is not only insidiously dangerous, but terribly simple. The man at the head of that government is there illegally. How can this be? Because Minor V. Happersett is still law, it has not been overturned any more than Marbury V. Madison has.

“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.” Minor V. Happersett (88 U.S. 162)

The Court did not need to decide if Virginia Minor was a citizen because she was obviously a natural born citizen, born in the United States to two parents who were its citizens. The Minor case instructs clearly and concisely that those not born to two citizen parents will have doubts cast on their citizenship status, which in some circumstances, such as qualification under Article 2 Section 1 of the United States Constitution, will demand answers.

Simple logic tells us that where there is doubt about something, proofs must be offered to confirm its status. The proof offered by Barack Obama of his Natural Born Citizenship and placed by him on the White House website has been found to be a “probable forgery” by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, in a legitimate law enforcement action undertaken at the written insistence of the Citizens of Maricopa County and presented to them in person on March 31, 2012. The Sheriff is a five time, popularly elected law enforcement official who has served 20 years in that office.

This is the M-1/A-2 tank roaring through the room. If Marbury V. Madison is still law, so too is Minor V. Happersett.

If Barack Obama was completely wrong to state: “…the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress…”, then he is equally incorrect to claim Natural Born Citizenship because he was not “born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” He has offered no legitimate proof that he could be a citizen; his father was a British subject of Kenya and was never a citizen of the United States. What proof Obama has offered has been proven a forgery by law enforcement officials.

Mrs. Cotter is a senior at American Military University, recipient of the Outstanding Student Essay of 2009, a member of Delta Epsilon Tau and Epsilon Pi Phi Academic Fraternities and on the Dean’s and President’s Lists for academic achievement. She has published at American Thinker, Examiner.com, Accuracy in Media, Family Security Matters, Post and Email, English Pravda, Tea Party Tribune, Patriot Action Network, and The Western Center for Journalism.

On Monday, Eric Holder’s Department of Justice barred the proposed Texas voter ID law from taking effect. Writing for the DOJ, Assistant Attorney General Robert Perez claimed that the law requiring all Texas voters to present a state issued photo ID at the polls would “adversely affect Hispanic voters” because they are “more than twice as likely not to have valid photo identification than non-Hispanic registered voters.”

It is hardly surprising that Democrats hold nationwide antipathy for voter ID laws. After all, as it is the left which benefits from criminal misadventure at the polls, anything which tends to interfere with turning the votes of the dead, the illegal, and the non-existent into a Democrat victory must be fought with every resource of the Obama Administration.

The proposed Texas law and a similar South Carolina statute rejected by the DOJ last year were both victims of Eric Holder’s deliberately disingenuous use of the 1973 Voting Rights Act, which requires states or areas with “a history of voting discrimination” to have proposed changes to their voting laws “pre-approved” by the federal government.

The fact is, the Obama Regime used Section 5 of the VRA to mask its real goal of enabling voter fraud by claiming the proposed legislation of both states to be in violation of the Act’s aim of ensuring fair and honest voting standards.

And just as it had in the case of South Carolina, the DOJ barred the revision to the Texas law by completely ignoring a decision of the United States Supreme Court.

In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled the newly enacted State of Indiana statute requiring all who come to the polls to present a state issued, picture ID as legal and constitutional.

Described as one of the strictest voter ID laws in the nation, the Indiana statute had been opposed by a typical assortment of left-wing agencies which claimed its enactment would unfairly burden the usual victim classes of the poor, minorities, the aged and infirm.

Writing a concurring opinion on the Court’s judgment, Antonin Scalia said “the Fourteenth Amendment does not regard neutral laws as invidious, even when their burdens purportedly fall disproportionately on a protected class.” That is, as the law applies uniformly to all citizens, the fact that it might burden some more than others is not a basis for discarding it.

The Supreme Court clearly ruled that “…without proof of discriminatory intent, a generally applicable law with disparate impact is not unconstitutional.”

Free voter ID’s made available by the state to any American citizen who wishes one does not constitute a basis for a claim of disenfranchisement of Hispanics. But Barack Obama’s Department of Justice did not look to the Court for guidance as it is the “disenfranchisement” of illegals and others who should not be voting that actually BOTHERS Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and the Department of Justice in the first place!

From Obamacare to immigration law and voter ID laws, the Obama Regime is interested only in the exercise of power and control over the American public. By enabling millions of illegals to vote for Democrats, the left hopes to secure the legislative and executive authority it needs to turn a Constitutional republic into a Marxist dictatorship. Should Obama and his handlers succeed, voter ID laws would become moot as elections themselves will be a distant memory.

The following is a report published by the RSLC summarizing some of the Obama administration’s flagrant and continued violations of the US Constitution. These abuses, coupled with recent questionable Executive Orders, confirm the man is a delusional child who thinks he is a leader without boundaries. Top cop, Eric Holder, is doing his best to thwart all efforts of states trying to implement voter ID laws and to secure a second term for his boss. Liberal judges are continually overturning laws that states and their citizens voted on and passed. What has happened to ‘we the people’ or ‘representatives of the people’ or even states’ rights? Since Congress has done nothing to stop Obama, we will have to. This will be the most important election in our lifetime – we need to roll up our sleeves and do all we can to defeat our narcisisstic delusional President — Kasey Jachim

As chief legal officers of the states and commonwealths, attorneys general are the last line of defense against an increasingly overreaching federal government. Attorneys general have a duty to uphold the laws of their respective states and uphold the U.S. and state constitutions.

One of the ways in which attorneys general protect the integrity of state laws and constitutions is by carefully reviewing the actions of the federal government and responding when they break the law or overstep the bounds of the Constitution.

Federalism is the division of authority between the federal and state governments that the Founding Fathers created to provide a check on federal power so that the federal government would not become destructive of the very liberty it was instituted to protect.

While some naïvely argue that the Constitution should “evolve” due to the fact that our Founders could not have foreseen the issues faced by our country today, they forget that the Founders faced tyranny firsthand and understood it well. This led to the creation of a Constitution that relies on limited government, precisely to protect our citizens from today’s unprecedented overstepping of the “division of authority.”

The Landscape

While each Attorney General has policy disagreements with the Obama Administration, those disagreements are not what serve as the basis for this effort. For example, this Administration makes many decisions and takes numerous actions that Republican attorneys general find politically ignorant or flawed from a policy standpoint. However, that does not make those decisions or actions illegal. The purpose of this report is to outline actions taken by this Administration that are violations of law.

The obvious example is a federal health care overhaul, passed against the will of the majority of Americans and more importantly in violation of the Constitution, which is now being challenged by more than half of the states.

While the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) has received the most attention, it serves as a representation of a much larger picture that demonstrates the continued disdain for the Constitution and laws shown by the Obama Administration.

Through the collective review by a committee of Attorneys General from nine of the 50 states, the group identified more than 21 illegal actions from this Administration and is highlighting the effects of the federal overreach on our citizens and states.

The Impact

Whether it is through the EPA, NLRB, Office of Surface Mining, FCC or other entities, the Obama Administration has aggressively used administrative agencies to implement policy objectives that cannot gain congressional approval and are outside of the law.

In Florida, a state with one of the most aggressive and innovative water quality protection programs in the country, the EPA chose to impose its own costly, unprecedented and unscientific numeric nutrient criteria. The estimated impact the EPA’s rules would impose was dramatic, including billions of dollars in compliance costs, significant spikes in utility bills and the loss of thousands of jobs. The Florida Attorney General’s Office sued the EPA and two weeks ago prevailed when a federal judge in Tallahassee threw out the costliest of the EPA’s rules, the one governing Florida’s streams and rivers. In doing so, the judge found the EPA’s rules were not based on sound science and that the agency had failed to prove that its rule would prevent any harm to the environment – in other words, the EPA was found to have violated the law.

In South Carolina, the NLRB’s recess-appointed, unconfirmed general counsel threatened to sue the state for guaranteeing a secret ballot in union elections, despite 83 percent of South Carolinians voting for an amendment for such action. When South Carolina was joined by three other states in mounting a vigorous defense, the NLRB backed down but turned their attention to Boeing, a private company and corporate citizen of South Carolina, telling the employer where they could or could not locate facilities. Again – after a high-profile fight – the NLRB backed down in their complaint against Boeing, but only after the company and the union worked through an agreement.

In Arizona, voters passed a referendum requiring that individuals registering to vote show evidence that they are citizens. Over 90 percent of the population can satisfy this simply by writing down a driver’s license number or naturalization number. The less than 10 percent of those who do not have these numbers are able to register by mailing a copy of a birth certificate, passport, Indian registration number or similar documentation. The Obama Administration argued against Arizona in the Ninth Circuit and a decision is yet to be made.

In Oklahoma, the EPA illegally usurped Oklahoma’s authority in the Clean Air Act to determine the state’s own plan for addressing sources of emissions by imposing a federal implementation plan. The federal plan goes beyond the authority granted to the EPA in the Clean Air Act and will result in a $2 billion cost to install technology needed to complete the EPA plan and a permanent increase of 15-20 percent in the cost of electricity. The Obama Administration is fighting Oklahoma’s appeal, which was filed in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The ongoing fight over the individual mandate and these four state examples serve as only a representation of the more than 21 Obama Administration violations that attorneys general are fighting against.

Taking Action

What these nine Attorneys General have collectively confirmed is that this Administration repeatedly shows disdain for states, federal laws it finds inconvenient, the Constitution and the courts.

With the release of this report, and its extensive list of transgressions, two principles are abundantly clear:

This group of nine Attorneys General will grow and continue to serve as a de facto “task force,” assisting when possible to defend state laws and identifying “best practices” and legal arguments to fight back against the Obama Administration’s illegalities in a more cohesive and effective manner;

The next election is critically important and as the states’ chief legal officers, the attorneys general will make a concerted effort to educate their states’ voters on the impacts that the Obama Administration’s legal violations have on their every day lives.

Regardless of party, when Washington politicians fail to adhere to the Constitution and the rule of law, state attorneys general become the last line of defense against an overreaching federal government.

List of Violations

FCC: Regulation of the Internet in the face of a court order from Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. stating that the FCC does not have the power to regulate the Internet

PPACA: Individual Mandate; To be heard by Supreme Court of the United States in March

EPA 1: GHG lawsuit; EPA’s own Inspector General reported last September that EPA failed to comply with its own data standards; Heard in Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. in February

OSM: Attempting to impose regulatory requirements on the 19 states with authority for exclusive regulation of their coalmines for the first time in more than 30 years

NLRB: Boeing; Engaged in unprecedented behavior as described by former Chairmen under both Presidents Bush (43) and Clinton; behavior is best exemplified in South Carolina where the Board tried to muzzle over 80 percent of state voters who supported a secret ballot amendment to the South Carolina Constitution and attempted unsuccessfully to tell an employer in the state where they can and cannot base manufacturing facilities

EPA: Texas Air; TX filed lawsuit challenging Cross-State Air Pollution Rules; application rule to TX was particularly dubious because state was included in the regulation at the last minute and without an opportunity to respond to the proposed regulation; regulation was based on a dubious claim that air pollution from TX affected a single air-quality monitor in Granite City, Illinois more than 500 miles and three states away from Texas

EPA: Oklahoma Air; EPA illegally usurped Oklahoma’s authority in the Clean Air Act to determine the state’s own plan for addressing sources of emissions that affect visibility, by imposing a federal implementation plan; Federal plan goes beyond the authority granted to the EPA in the Clean Air Act and will result in $2 billion in cost to install technology needed to complete the EPA plan, and a permanent increase of 15-20 percent in the cost of electricity; Obama Administration is fighting Oklahoma’s appeal, which was filed in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals

HHS: Religious Liberty; HHS mandated religious entities such as Catholic, Baptist and Jewish schools and churches be required to provided medical services they find unconscionable to their employees; President attempted to compromise with an “accommodation” in name only that required insurance companies to provide the services for free to the religious organization employees; Accommodation made matters worse as many religious-base hospitals and schools are self-insurers; Seven Attorneys General filed suit to protect religious liberty and oppose the HHS mandate

DOJ: South Carolina & Voting Rights Act: Rejecting voter ID statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court of the United States; DOJ ignored section 8 of the Voting Rights Act which calls for protections against voter fraud, and used section 5 to administratively block measures to protect the integrity of elections passed by state legislatures in preclearance states including South Carolina; South Carolina voter ID law merely requires a voter to show photo identification in order to vote or to complete an affidavit at the pain of perjury if the voter does not have a photo ID

DOJ: Arizona & Voting Rights Act: Rejecting voter ID statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court of the United States

DOJ: Arizona Immigration; In violation of 10th Amendment, federal government to sue to prevent AZ from using reasonable measures to discourage illegal immigration within Arizona’s borders; Affects Arizona because state has a large percentage, compared to other states, of illegal immigrants and need to be able to act to reduce the number

DOJ: Alabama Immigration; The DOJ challenged Alabama’s immigration reform laws after parts were “green lighted” by a federal judge; DOJ appealed the ruling; parts of the AL case have been struck down in various federal courts; specific provisions of the law include collection of the immigration status of public school students, businesses must use E-Verify, prohibition of illegal immigrants receiving public benefits; the provision requiring immigrants to always carry alien registration cards; allowance of lawsuits by state citizens who do not believe public officials are enforcing the law

DOJ: South Carolina Immigration; DOJ challenged South Carolina’s immigration reform laws that are very similar to the AZ which is scheduled to appear before the United States Supreme Court; SC case will be heard by the 4th Circuit soon there after as the 4th Circuit granted SC motion to extend the filing time until after the US Supreme Court issues an Opinion in AZ

Congressional: “Recess” appointments to NLRB (three) and CFPB (one)

EEOC: Hosanna Tabor (MI); Sought to reinstate a minister who was discharged for her disagreement with the religious doctrine of the church

DOE: Yucca Mountain; In 2009, Administration arbitrarily broke federal law and derailed the most studied energy project in American history when DOE announced intent to withdraw 8,000 page Yucca Mountain licensing application with prejudice; SC and Washington State filed suit, as a result, contesting the unconstitutional action; American people have paid more than $31 billion (including interest) through percentages of electric rate fees towards the project and taxpayers have footed an addition $200 million in legal feeds and over $2 billion in judgments against the DOE for breaking contracts associated with Yucca Mountain

DOI: Glendale Casino (AZ); Glendale is a violation because the Federal Government is forcing a family-oriented town, Glendale, to become another Las Vegas against its will. Essentially, the Federal Government has granted ‘reservation status’ to a 54-acre plot in the same town, where the Tohono O’odham Nation plans to build a resort and casino.

Democrats have objected to the voter ID laws as impediments to minority voting while Republicans have said they protect the integrity of elections. Republican officials in Texas, one of eight states that passed voter identification laws last year, said the administration has no valid reason to challenge the measure.

“Their denial is yet another example of the Obama administration’s continuing and pervasive federal overreach,”Texas Governor Rick Perry said in a statement.

The Justice Department’s decision isn’t final. Texas and South Carolina have filed suit in federal court in Washington seeking permission to enforce their photo ID requirements.

Before blocking South Carolina’s law, the last time the Justice Department challenged a state voter identification measure under the Voting Rights Act was in 1994.

History Binds States

Texas and South Carolina are among 16 states or portions of states that must obtain permission from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington before redrawing their district lines or changing election procedures because of a history of voting rights violations.

Hispanic registered voters in Texas are 47 percent to 120 percent more likely to lack the required identification than non-Hispanic voters, the Justice Department said in its letter. Texas has 12.9 million registered voters of whom 2.81 million are Hispanic.

“Even using the data most favorable to the state, Hispanics disproportionately lack either a driver’s license or a personal identification card,” Thomas Perez, head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, wrote in the letter to Keith Ingram, the director of elections for the Texas Secretary of State.

The Voting Rights Act puts the burden on Texas to prove its law wouldn’t interfere with minorities’ ability to vote.

‘Federal Overreach’

Representative Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that the Justice Department’s action is an example of the administration’s “abuse of executive authority.”

“It’s a good sign that the Department of Justice is stepping into the jurisdictions where it can to stop these laws in their tracks,” said Nancy Abudu, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project in Atlanta,

Under the Texas law signed last year by Perry, voters who arrive at the polls without one of seven acceptable forms of photo IDs issued by the state or federal government, including concealed carry handgun permits, would be given a provisional ballot, according to the Texas Secretary of State’s website.

Those ballots would count only if voters bring an approved ID to the registrar’s office within six days of the election.

‘Minor Inconveniences’

The law exempts mail-in ballots and voters with significant disabilities or religious objections to being photographed.

The law’s requirements “entail minor inconveniences on exercising the right to vote,” Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said in his court filing on Jan. 24.

The photo ID law would disproportionately affect poor and minority voters, who are least likely to have any of the required forms of identification or the documentation needed to obtain one, said Luis Figueroa, a San Antonio, Texas-based legislative staff attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. It also would hurt students because college or university IDs would not be accepted, Figueroa said.

The photo ID requirement could suppress minority turnout by three percent to five percent in Harris County, where Houston is located, and give Republicans an edge in local elections, said Carroll Robinson, a professor at Texas Southern University in Houston and a former city council member.

“We’re going to disenfranchise significant numbers of minority voters as they become more and more the majority in Texas,” Robinson said.

Patricia Harless, a Republican state representative, said concerns among constituents about “the integrity of elections”rather than possible partisan advantage explains why she sponsored the voter ID measure last year. The law reduces the possibility of fraud, she said.

Lawmakers excluded student IDs because “we wanted a form of identification that was easily recognized by the poll workers at the election site,” Harless said.

Voters 65 and older automatically qualify to cast ballots by mail, which requires no ID, and the state will provide free voter identification cards.

“We worked really hard to make sure we met the constitutional requirements,” Harless said.

Lacking State ID

The Obama administration blocked South Carolina’s law in December after concluding minorities in the state are almost 20 percent more likely to lack state-issued identification than white registered voters.

The Justice Department asked for similar statistics from Texas, which said it doesn’t collect the kind of racial data needed to accurately determine how many of the state’s registered voters don’t have a driver’s license or state ID card are black or Hispanic. Texas provided data based on Hispanic surnames and no data on the impact on black voters, according to the Justice Department.

Jasmine Price, a sophomore at Prairie View A&M University, a historically black college 30 miles from Houston, said the law would make it harder for her to vote in person in Texas, as she’d prefer, rather than by absentee ballot in her home state, Arkansas.

Price, 19, said if the law takes effect, she’ll try to find the time in between a full course load and three shifts a week as a manager at a Houston sporting goods store to drive seven miles from campus to the nearest state Department of Public Safety office that issues IDs.

Literacy Tests

“My forefathers had it even harder to vote — they had to pass literacy tests — but they made sure they did what they had to do so that their vote could count,” said Price, who is black. “So if they say I have to go to the DPS office, as much as an inconvenience as it is to go there, that’s what I’m going to do.”

Alabama, where the voter ID law is not scheduled to go into effect until 2014, and Mississippi, where lawmakers haven’t adopted legislation to implement a citizen initiative approving a similar requirement, would also have to obtain Justice Department or federal court approval.

In Wisconsin, which doesn’t need to obtain the same kind of advance approval under federal law as Texas does, two state judges have temporarily blocked a voter ID requirement.

The latest ruling today in a challenge by the League of Women Voters came six days after a second judge ruled in a separate suit by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People against Governor Scott Walker.

Map of USA highlighting current states with no income tax (red and gray)

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — A year after Republicans swept into office across the country, many have trained their sights on what has long been a fiscal conservative’s dream: the steep reduction or even outright elimination of state income taxes.

The idea has circulated among academics and think-tank researchers for years. But it’s moving quietly into mainstream political discourse, despite the fact that such sweeping changes would almost certainly mean a total rewiring of tax systems at a time when most states are still struggling in the aftermath of the recession.

“I think there’s going to be more action that way,” especially as Republican governors release their budget plans, said Kim Rueben, an expert on state taxation at the Brookings Urban Tax Policy Center.

Last year, GOP lawmakers in many states quickly went to work on a new conservative agenda: restricting abortion, cracking down on illegal immigration, expanding gun rights and taking aim at public-employee unions.

Emboldened by that success, the party has launched income tax efforts in Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma and South Carolina. But it’s not clear how all those states would make up for the lost revenue, and Rueben said she’s not aware of any state in modern history that has eliminated an income tax.

Nine states already get by without an income tax, mostly by tapping other sources of revenue. Nevada and Florida rely on sales taxes that target the tourism industry. Alaska has taxes on natural resources, and Texas imposes substantial property taxes. The other five states are: New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington and Wyoming.

But in the rest of the country, income taxes pay for bedrock government services, including roads and bridges and schools and prison systems.

In Oklahoma, Republican Gov. Mary Fallin says gradually cutting the top income-tax rate of 5.25 percent will make the state more attractive to businesses, help spur economic growth and ensure Oklahoma is competitive against neighboring states such as Texas. Although the personal income tax does not apply to corporate earnings, supporters say company executives and employees will prefer to live in a state that doesn’t tax personal income.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley is pushing this year to consolidate four personal income tax brackets and to phase out corporate income taxes. She promises to seek more tax cuts in the future.

Missouri has a bill to reduce income taxes and offset the lost revenue by raising the cigarette tax.

And Maine’s GOP-controlled Legislature voted last year to lower the income tax from 8.5 to 7.95 percent, taking 70,000 low-income citizens off the income-tax rolls.

Idaho Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter has suggested reducing the individual income tax rate from 7.8 percent to 7.6 percent, the same as the corporate income tax rate, and then gradually lowering both to 7 percent. But business groups have said they would rather get help eliminating the personal property tax businesses pay on their equipment.

In Ohio, Gov. John Kasich‘s 2010 campaign included a pledge to phase out the state’s personal income tax, though without a timetable for doing so. Thus far, the state’s fiscal situation has stymied the governor’s efforts to achieve his goal, other than implementing a previously scheduled income tax cut.

As one way to compensate for the lost revenue, the Oklahoma governor and others have suggested eliminating other kinds of tax breaks and incentives, specifically transferrable tax credits offered to certain businesses. But that would still fall woefully short in Oklahoma, where the income tax provides more than one-third of all state spending.

Still, 23 Republicans in the Oklahoma House have signed up as sponsors of a measure to abolish the income tax over the next decade without raising any other taxes.

“Our goal is to transform Oklahoma into the best place to do business, the best place to live, find a quality job, raise a family and retire in all of the United States. Not just better than average, but the very best,” state Rep. Leslie Osborn said.

Lower taxes appeal to many voters, but some wonder how the state could get by if lawmakers abandon a major source of money.

“I personally would favor paying less taxes, but to me, it’s like where are we going to make up the difference?” said Steve Schlegel, a bicycle shop owner in Oklahoma City. “I already feel like government is underfunded at the moment.”

Roger Garner, a letter courier, said he would accept higher property taxes if it meant eliminating the income tax.

“Get rid of it,” Garner said. “Florida doesn’t have it. Texas doesn’t have it. We don’t need it. If something is needed, we can figure out a way to pay for it at the local level.”

Conservatives say the lost revenue will be made up by increased economic activity — more businesses paying corporate taxes and more employees paying property taxes and spending money. But economists warn those predictions are unrealistic.

Without creating an alternative funding system, “it’s clearly irresponsible to propose taking action against the income tax,” said Alan Viard, an economist with the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based conservative think tank.

Former Oklahoma Treasurer Scott Meacham, a Democrat who helped negotiate a series of small income tax cuts, urged state leaders to be careful tinkering with the state’s economy, which is currently enjoying double-digit revenue growth and has one of the 10 lowest unemployment rates in the country.

“If you look at our state’s economy, it’s doing very well versus virtually any other state, whether they have a state income tax or not,” said Meacham, who is now a member of the board of directors for the State Chamber, an association of Oklahoma business and industry.

Voters, he added, “ought to be very concerned, especially in an election year, when the politicians are telling them they know what’s best for them from an economic standpoint.”

In neighboring Kansas, Republican Gov. Sam Brownback has a sweeping plan to overhaul income taxes that calls for offsetting income tax cuts by canceling a scheduled drop in the sales tax. But it would increase the tax burden for the state’s poorest households. And he faces resistance from within his own party over concern that the sales tax increase was supposed to be a temporary fix back in 2010.

A similar debate is unfolding in Oklahoma, where the plan calls for reducing the income tax from 5.25 percent to 4.75 percent by eliminating the personal exemption for every household member, including children, as well as the child tax credit and earned income tax credit.

An analysis by the Oklahoma Policy Institute shows those steps would raise taxes for 55 percent of Oklahomans, mostly low-income families and those with children.

“We have grave doubts about this proposal,” said David Blatt, director of the institute. “We see stumbling blocks in every direction. You either decimate state services or shift the burden onto those that can least afford it.”

___

Associated Press writers John Hanna in Topeka, Kan.; Seanna Adcox in Columbia, S.C.; David Lieb in Jefferson City, Mo.; and Glenn Adams in Augusta, Maine; Julie Carr Smyth in Columbus, Ohio; and John Miller in Boise, Idaho, contributed to this report.

Shortly before Newt Gingrich’s decisive victory in South Carolina last week, he was asked a critical question by a Palmetto State voter: Would he support a Muslim candidate for president? The former Speaker of the House answered in a way that was both characteristically insightful and profoundly helpful with respect to one of the most serious challenges our country faces at the moment.

Mr. Gingrich responded by saying it depends on a critical factor: Is the candidate “a modern person who happens to worship Allah”? Or “a person who belonged to any kind of belief in shariah, any kind of effort to impose that on the rest of us”? Speaker Gingrich observed that the former would not be a problem, while the latter would be a “mortal threat.” The Georgia Republican went on to assert the need for federal legislation that would prevent shariah from being applied in U.S. courts.

Muslim Brotherhood front groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) are squealing like, well, stuck haram (or impure) pigs. After all, they have been working overtime to try to obscure the true nature of shariah and to prevent the enactment of legislation that would interfere with the considerable progress being made below the radar in states across the country: the insinuation of shariah into the American judiciary.

Resorting to their standard technique of ad hominem attacks, CAIR and its friends have derided Mr. Gingrich’s stance as “racist,” “bigoted” and “Islamophobic.” Such comments evidently were not persuasive to South Carolina voters – and they should be equally dismissed by everybody else.

The simple fact of the matter is that shariah defines the fault line between people who are Muslims but can love our country, respect and enjoy its freedoms and support our form of government and Constitution on the one hand, and those who are obliged by doctrine to oppose all those things. Worse, adherents to shariah must – in accordance with that doctrine – seek, as Speaker Gingrich says, “to impose it on the rest of us.”

For the latter Muslims, the preferred way of achieving such submission is, as Mohammed taught, through violence. Where that would be impractical and/or counterproductive for the moment, however, their doctrine encourages the use of stealthy techniques to advance the same, supremacist goal.

The Muslim Brotherhood in America calls this “civilization jihad.” It seeks through, for example, the use of shariah in U.S. courts to insinuate their program here at the expense of our constitutional rights and state public policy.

In almost all of the cases, that outcome was at the expense of the constitutional rights of American women or children. Under shariah, they simply do not enjoy the same stature and are not entitled to the same freedoms as they are under U.S. law.

In November 2010, seventy percent of the voters of Oklahoma approved an amendment to the state constitution that would have barred shariah from being used in Oklahoma’s courts. No sooner had the balloting ended than the local franchise of CAIR – an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial – asked for an injunction on the grounds that such a prohibition would violate Muslims’ constitutional rights. A federal judge agreed, and was recently upheld by an appellate court.

Fortunately, those who concur with Newt Gingrich on the nature of the threat posed by shariah and who want to prevent its further penetration into this country have another option. Three states – Tennessee, Louisiana and Arizona – have already enacted a statute known as American Laws for American Courts (ALAC). It prohibits the use of any foreign law in the state’s courts that would interfere with U.S. constitutional rights or state public policy.

While shariah would certainly be covered by ALAC, it is not singled out for special treatment. No challenge has been mounted thus far in any of the states where it is the law today. And some 20 other states are actively considering ALAC’s adoption in the current legislative session.

The Muslim Brotherhood and its friends desperately hope to stave off the further enactment of American Laws for American Courts. They recognize that it can effectively thwart a key part of their civilization jihad in this country. They also have seen that, wherever ALAC is considered, more and more of our countrymen are becoming aware of the problem Newt Gingrich has helped define: the threat from shariah and the need to keep its adherents from imposing that toxic, anti-constitutional doctrine on the rest of us, whether by stealth in our courts (among other places) or through terrifying violence.

For all these reasons, we should ensure that neither shariah nor any other form of foreign or transnational law is allowed to trump our constitutional rights. To the Muslim Brotherhood’s fury, ALAC is a way of doing it in a constitutionally sound and highly teachable way.

You know, comrades,” says Stalin, “that I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how. (Boris Bazhanov‘s Memoirs of Stalin’s Former Secretary ,1992, only available in Russian.

Background

Deception is everywhere in nature as biology’s Bob Trivers observes in his latest book, The Folly of Fools:

Novelty is valuable if it generates deceptive tricks. It also seeds a long contest between deceiver and deceived: each player changes in response to its partner. Deception, for example, fares well when it is less frequent and poorly when it is not. The relationship, thus, between deceiver and deceived cycles and neither partner will be driven to extinction. (A similar relationship occurs between men and women, hares and foxes, moths and birds!) Humans frequently put up warnings about deception when deception increases and are less worried when deception is rare, fun (lipstick or “the Devil made me do it,” or extraneous to survival. And failure to put up or to respond to warnings suggests there are payoffs either for playing dumb or being dumb.

Trivers, however, does not consider when the deceived also benefits from the deception by an adversary. This is common in human interactions. The ovulating woman believes the playboy’s story wealthy, strong, and loving, both enjoy an unprotected hour, and she takes her growing baby home for boring but predictable Homer to raise. This kind of lie is also apt to occur in politics.

There are several lines of independent evidence that predict deception in the 2012 election:

a) 12/30/11, Voter ID: PA House Bill 934

Eric Holder has ordered his staff not to meddle with cases of voter fraud that involve minorities (J. Christian Adams has written widely about such cases), Salina Zito (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review) predicted that PA in November ‘12 will go according to the Philadelphia suburbs, ACORN has both a record for voter scams and new sites in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, our State Attorney General is stepping aside, and there is little public information about Mayor Nutter’s views on this matter. Meanwhile, there is an early February deadline from our Governor as Republicans in the PA legislature attempt to define a list of acceptable IDs and Democrats cry that minorities and old people can’t handle this demand.

I smell more fraud from a bunch- ACORN – already known nationally for fraud and a February deadline invites some deliberate lapse by the D’s …And intrusion by Eric Holder would stall our ID program until after ACORN has done their job for BO …

“…South Carolina’s legislation provides for free ID cards to be given to anyone who needs it. Not one person – white, black or brown – is discriminated against or discouraged from casting a vote at the ballot box. Moreover, the Supreme Court already has ruled on the issue – upholding state voter ID laws. In the 2008 Crawford v. Marion County Election Board decision, the high court held that an Indiana law mandating photo identification at the voting booth was indeed constitutional. If it is good enough for the Supreme Court and the overwhelming majority of the states, then it should be for Mr. Holder as well.

“It isn’t. And the reason is simple: The administration is trying to whip up minority frenzy, propagating the myth of widespread ballot suppression…”

c) Daryl Metcalf, Morning Call: Electoral Integrity (June 18, 2011)

Metcalf is a Republican from Butler County (north of Pittsburgh)

“Pennsylvania has a long and ongoing history of documented voter fraud — pre-dating even the frequently forged signature of Mickey Mouse to at least the election of 1918.

“Of course, no statewide analysis of voter fraud would be complete without briefly documenting the deeply rooted influence of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

“I am not wealthy, but have recently acquired twenty two domiciles throughout Philadelphia. My real estate prowess has afforded me a unique opportunity to make a difference in the lives of our citizens.

“I can vote twenty-two times.

“You see, I have staked out prime locations, from a cardboard box under the Walt Whitman Bridge to a culvert on Cobbs Creek Parkway to a burnt out shell at 7th and Diamond. Yes, technically, habitating at these locations makes me ‘homeless,’ but I much prefer the term ‘voter-enfranchised.’ When you have such a love of democracy, how can anyone have a problem with people who want to vote multiple times, especially the homeless? (Although, in fairness, dead people should only be able to vote once).

e) 11/7/2011, PA ACORN

“Pennsylvania.ACORN PA has become Pennsylvania Communities Organizing for Change (PCOC) and Pennsylvania Neighborhoods for Social Justice (PNSJ). Both were incorporated on January 8, 2010. On July 26, 2010, PCOC filed for another name — Action United — and the organizations now operate under this name. Current board members and staff of these organizations with former ACORN affiliations include:

 Lucille Prater Holliday, chair (ACORN member and Democratic state house candidate)

There must be some benefit to Republicans if they ignore voter fraud. For example, my acquaintance publishes lists of Republicans who take contributions from unions and refusing to vote against union interests. And conservative Lowman Henry has spoken about the legislative impasse, particularly in the State Senate, produced by about twenty-five who get their money from organized labor.

Thus, Nicole Marrone’s conclusion is still valid as is Christopher Freind’s:

“The city of Philadelphia is known for many things: The Liberty Bell, cheesesteaks, water ice, and Santa Claus-booing Eagles fans. But if research that I conducted in 2006 is still accurate today, Philadelphia should also be known for all-inclusive voting — that is, voting regardless of whether one has a pulse or is otherwise eligible to cast a vote…” http://pjmedia.com/blog/small-sample-of-philly-voter-rolls-reveals-…

There is a bright light on our horizon even though Salena Zito asserted that Pennsylvania electoral votes will depend on turn out in the Philadelphia suburbs:

“Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter didn’t mince words after four kids were shot and three killed in Philadelphia Tuesday night.

“The first way to stop this kind of stuff is for young people to be home when they’re supposed to be home, and for adults not to act like idiots and a******s out in the streets of our city shooting at kids in a car,” Nutter told FOX 29…

What are Mayor Mike’s reactions to fraud? Does he value “value” above “deals”?

Meanwhile, many Pennsylvanians look to Harrisburg to pass a “Voter ID” law that requires each of us to carry a card with our photo and address on it. Our Governor also says that he needs the law in place by the first week of February if it is to be used this coming November.

On the other hand, I recall my son’s friends in college fattening their wallets by selling bogus photo ID to students who wanted to buy liquor. I’m sure ACORN knows how to do such things.

The ID cards will make cheating a bit more difficult and more expensive for organizers and possibly, but not necessarily, less frequent. And the rest of us will pay the bills for cheaters…

Post navigation

“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does NOT mean to stand by the President or, any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is un-patriotic not to oppose him, to the exact extent that by inefficiency or, otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In any event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth - whether about the President or anyone else - save in the rare cases where this would make known to the enemy information of military value which would otherwise be unknown to him.”
~THEODORE ROOSEVELT~

FOLLOW BLOG VIA EMAIL

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.